Question for people who know things about polling: I see that "Somewhat likely" voters are given no weight; is this a normal setup for a LV screen?

I think the theory is that people tend to lie about these things, overstating their likelihood to vote. So far from everyone who says "I'll definitely vote" does and those who are only somewhat likely are actually very unlikely.

Now do you guys believe me that Nate's lost it, and really isn't doing much other than making a glorified polling map?

Not at all. Data is data. You don't throw it out because you don't think it's right. It's given a low weight in the database because of the small sample sizes. He throws out polls that are believed to be fake, but not polls that are real with seemingly strange results. If you can't understand the rationale in this, well I'm sorry. But that's problem with you and your understanding of statistics, rather than with Nate and his application of it.

At this moment don't get why are they including these polls in the forecasts at all even though they give them small weight. Even with bigger sample sizes they have Trump up 10 in FL and Clinton up by only 8 i think in IL

At this moment don't get why are they including these polls in the forecasts at all even though they give them small weight. Even with bigger sample sizes they have Trump up 10 in FL and Clinton up by only 8 i think in IL

I would say it looks pretty plausible in states that have enough respondents.

At this moment don't get why are they including these polls in the forecasts at all even though they give them small weight. Even with bigger sample sizes they have Trump up 10 in FL and Clinton up by only 8 i think in IL

I would say it looks pretty plausible in states that have enough respondents.

At this moment don't get why are they including these polls in the forecasts at all even though they give them small weight. Even with bigger sample sizes they have Trump up 10 in FL and Clinton up by only 8 i think in IL

I would say it looks pretty plausible in states that have enough respondents.

At this moment don't get why are they including these polls in the forecasts at all even though they give them small weight. Even with bigger sample sizes they have Trump up 10 in FL and Clinton up by only 8 i think in IL

I would say it looks pretty plausible in states that have enough respondents.

If you assume that the race is Trump +7, yeah. I don't (sane)

What's the map look like?

And, assuming Trump gets NE-2 and ME-2, NH becomes the tipping point. Given what we know about it, this would clearly produce an anti-2000 result